Nikon D600 Preview updated: studio and 24-85mm lens samples added

Updated: We've just added studio comparison images and a gallery of 'real world' sample shots to our hands-on preview of the Nikon D600. Nikon's latest DSLR offers 24MP resolution and an FX format (full frame) sensor, and is Nikon's most affordable full-frame model yet. As well as studio comparison images shot at all ISO sensitivity settings in both JPEG and Raw capture modes, we've also added a new gallery of real-world samples taken using the 'kit' option AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR, an affordable general-purpose zoom lens for the FX format.

Nikon D600 + Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 VR 'Real-World' Samples

There are 36 images in this gallery, taken with the D600 and kit option Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR zoom lens. This gallery also contains several conversions from .NEF Raw files, 'to taste' in Adobe Camera Raw (using a private beta version of ACR 7.3).

I'd have wanted to see a couple of architecture shots with the lens wide open.This 24-85 is the kit lens for the D600, and it's practically the only affordable choice for enthusiasts migrating to full frame.Some tests on another photography website have shown this lens to have very soft corners unless heavily stepped down, so seeing some sample shots would have been helpful.

"This 24-85 is the kit lens for the D600, and it's practically the only affordable choice..."

Which makes you wonder, for a given budget, which avenue lends itself to greater photographic opportunities, a D600 + kit lens, or a D7000 + several decent lenses? Which gives you greater click-per-buck?

Sure you can get much better image quality per buck from prime lenses, but you miss the convenience of zooms.Having the wrong focal length lens at the wrong time may mean missing a shot completely.

Concerning the architectural shots wide open: agreed, but that wasn't my point.I mentioned architectural shots just because it's easier to visually assess lens defects.I could have asked perhaps for resolution charts, and that would have served the purpose even better.The point i was trying to make is: some reviews have slammed the IQ of this kit lens unless stopped down by a couple of stops.I just wanted to see with my own eyes how usable this lens would be wide open.

Yesterday I was able to test the D600 on a Aikido training. Used it with my Nikkor 50 1,4 and Sigma 70-200 2.8Low-light performance is awesome! No problem at all! I was sceptical about the AF area, but surprisingly it was no issue at all.AF is fast and very accurate... But, a bit like the D800, be careful choosing good lenses! Every tiny bit of blurryness is noticable on "bad" glass. High MP are awesome but I tend to look at pictures on 100% crop... And there you will notice the diffrence.Next to my D5100 its lightyears ahead and feels like a tank.I will post some images as soon as I can.

that is normal, you have a pixel size same as a 12 mpix APSC. Add to this the progress made in ASIC processors and you get to the point. But, the 16 mpix APSC has a pixel same size as 36 mpix D800 sensor and thus draws finer detail. The higher resolution is always obtained at the expense of noise in higher ISO ranges. D700 has a pixel same as D70 or D40. With the new processors this allows clean shots up to ISO 13000. Now, ask yourself if you need that, 98% of all your shots are done on daytime with good light conditions, unless you are a night-time reporter, working in the dark.

same here, Best Buy in Ridgeland, MS. It is a very dim and dark store, I suppose they are trying to save money burning fewer lights.

Anyway after looking into it further somebody (customer probably) had the settings all goobed up I never did find the main cause but after setting the camera back to factory defaults the d600 worked great. It is so dark in that store you can never really see very well.

D600 looks great in RAW at high ISO. To my eyes equals if not betters 5dmiii which costs $1400 more. Combine that with amazing dynamic range and you have an amazing product.

The JPEG performance at high ISO isnt as good as the RAW. I get the impression Nikon purposely does that to ensure the D800 and d4 remain top of the pile. Most online comparisons only look at JPEG noise which is meaningless to most shooters who use RAW converters

It's already been established through other test sites like DxOMark, that the D600 just edges our the D800 for high ISO performance. Both are 1/2 or more better than the 5D III in high ISO abilities. Two impressive bodies for sure.

Don't know what you base your assumption on by saying DxO sensor ratings are questionable. When you understand their way to compare sensors with "screen" and "print" ratings, it shouldn't be that questionable.

Sure the 5DIII is a great product, but was showing in several tests to have considerably less shadow detail (2,5 stop dynamic range advantage) then the D800. It seems that the teaming up of Nikon with Sony has given Nikon a clear edge over Canon in terms of sensor performance in the latest models.

It is interesting to compare the RAW images of the D600 to the D3200 using the dpr tool

Up to ISO 800 I doubt anyone could tell the difference in an actual photo and that is without having to spend ages using post processing to get the best out of the D3200 image. At ISO1600 there is clearly more noise in the D3200 shot but the detail is still there some with so post processing I think once again you would have a hard time telling the output apart in an actual photo.

I am sure there must be some people who shoot above ISO 1600 all the time but not many.

Therefore I think people should evaluate why they want a FF camera on more issues than high ISO noise. There are certainly valid reasons to go the FF route (e.g. DOF , gain at the wide angle end) but also valid reasons to stick with aps-c (e.g crop factor makes wildlife photography much cheaper lens-wise, often much faster frame rates).

Obsessing about noise if you rarely shoot above 1600 is nuts - and costly kit-wise.

I don't know the quantitative meanings of these metrics, but I can tell that in an image, usually containing humans, under really good light (like fashion or portraiture), these characteristics really come out at higher ISOs.

Dpreview's samples always skew toward environmental shots, and I can't extrapolate from the studio samples to how a camera would perform on a photoshoot. (or taking pictures of my family, in a room, lit by really nice diffused light coming in from the window).

It's kind of a straw man for me b/c I'll never buy FF on price, but I always though if $$ and camera size weren't an issue, FF is unquestionably better if you're trying to capture flattering images of people.

I am sure at higher ISO's FF is as you say but my point was most people don't shoot at high ISO virtually all the time.

If someone has enough disposable income to treat themselves to a FF DLSR that is used at ISO 6400 once in a blue moon fair enough but my point was at what you might term regular ISO's you are going to have a hard time telling a shot from a 24mp aps-c from a 24mp FF when looking at actual photos (not pixel peeping).

My other point was if you do go the FF route it has a cost over and above the expensive camera. If you shoot a lot of telephoto shots you are looking at some seriously expensive glass.

Given how good aps-c is at 24mp at lower ISO's I don't think a D600 makes as compelling a case as the D800. Yes the D600 is cheaper but its still well above something like a Sony A77 and that is before the glass cost comes into it.

As a Sony shooter if I had the cash I'd run both A77 and A99 to get the best of both worlds but alas I don't!

Dave, the enthusiast camera buyer isn't most people in the first place. And they run the gamut from landscapers who do ETTR at base ISO to parents shooting their kids playing basketball and doing school plays and concerts. High ISO isn't that uncommon. I shoot about 40% from 1600 up. But then again, I'm content with high ISO from APS-C. My high ISO shots are not destined to be printed large. Looking at the results for the D600 versus the D7000, I don't see a compelling case - the D600 is clearly "better" but not better in a way that would be significant to me.

The main advantage sensor size gives is directly tied to ISO holding everything else the same. If you take away high ISO performance from the FF camera, then you don't need all that light gathering and sensor area. If you only shoot at ISO 100, there are probably some cheapo compacts that can deliver almost identical results. I don't understand the argument here. I don't shoot at a specific ISO, I shoot at the lowest ISO I can. With FF, the lowest possible ISO need not be so low to still get full detail. I guess I just shoot in poor light more than most folks.

Mosc - if you shoot at the lowest ISO you can, the fact higher ISO's on a FF still give you very good performance doesn't seem relevant. You would not be taking advantage of this if you always shoot at the lowest ISO.

And even if we only ever shoot at ISO 100 the reason we don't buy cheapo compacts is because cheapo compacts are not as flexible as SLR's. No one is suggesting (for example) that just because a Canon 7D and a 550D use the same sensor there is no merit in buying a 7D. There is much more to a camera than its sensor and noise performance.

I agree with Dennis in that while cameras like the D600 (and A99) are clearly "better" I think aps-c is so good it means noise and resolution doesn't make such a compelling case to go FF as one might expect. I think there are other valid reasons to go FF than this and equally valid reasons to stay with aps-c.

I want this camera, but don't need it. It probably isn't that much better than my GH2 in real life. I have some Nikon lenses (100mm 2.5, 180mm 2.8, others) that I adapt to my GH2, and I've wanted a Nikon body for some time, but I'm not seeing enough here to justify the cost of the "upgrade".

As far as shooting over ISO 1600, how often is it really necessary? In my opinion, waiting for good light is a technique. People seemed to have abandoned that technique in search of cameras that do it all for them. While your D600 may kill my GH2 at ISO 3200, my GH2 at ISO 160 will kill your D600 at ISO 3200, and I'm patient enough to wait for the right light. Sure, sometimes you have to shoot in bad light, I know that. But I usually don't.

I still shoot 35mm film from time to time and scan it (Plustek 7200), which is a lot of work and inefficient, but I'm not willing to spend $2,000+ on this camera to get away from film.

After comparing the D600 (RAW @ISO6400) with some decent APSC cameras I must admit that (even lowend) fullframe is still visibly better (I compared the D7000, D300s, K-5 and X-Pro1). The only APSC that can compete is the Fuji, however it still does not match the FF.

Here, couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that, one can take easily better photos with Fujifilm S5 or even with Nikon D40 (except high ISO for D40) than with this "techno-wonder" faded color photo generator. Guess what, the flames were coming all around from fanboys. LOOL.

ISO 6400 sure does look good. I look forward to the day that a Nikon at a reasonable price can match my Sigma SD1 at low ISO or a Sigma can match the Nikon at high ISO. Good job Nikon. You are putting Canon to shame.

I compared to the D7000 also. I agree that it's visibly better, but visibly better at 100% view and not by a significant amount. In very large prints or in big prints from high ISO, it might be noticeable, but I'm not at that threshold.

I don't understand statements like "it still does not match full frame".

For what use?

My $2 pocket calculator "does not match" a $500 statistics program and computer for SOME uses, for other uses it does, and is actually more efficient and easier to use!

So what are you doing with these amazing, "matchless" files? I used to happily print at 13x19, with amazing detail, with my Olympus C7070 compact. I don't know what to do with all the resolution my Panasonic GH2 now gives me. And I'm supposed to feel I'm using sub-par equipment, because it isn't full frame?

I shoot quite often jpeg and raw together. It just helps me when a jpeg has not the right values, so i can do my own. Note that camera raw does quiet a good job to rectify jpeg as well, and,it is not destructive anymore, like in the past. Beyond 400 ISO I only shoot raw only anyway

Wow, you guys are willing to shell out $2,000+, and settle for a crappy jpeg engine?

I'm not a pro, but my understanding was that very few people who shoot things like weddings rely on raw. They may shoot raw + jpeg, in case they blow a shot, but most of what they actually use is produced by the camera's jpeg engine.

I shoot Panasonic now, which gives crappy, lifeless jpegs. I used to shoot Olympus (I'll probably go back) which had great jpegs. And yes, I do know how to get the last drop out of raw files. I just have better things to do with my time.

you're right there. If the camera does good jpeg's by it's own and they satisfy you, why waste time to to rework RAW files. As I sated before, I do the same. I shot RAW and jpeg at same time, and I only rework a raw if the jpeg is too bad to be used. Most of us are too critical with the every day's work. Most of those who claim about this matters are non-pros anyway.

The pictures are as bad as they are because the lens is bad. I bought one and tried to use it. I really wanted to be able to use it on my D800, but it never got to sharp at all at the wide end, and I was using it under ideal circumstances. I phoned Nikon who told me they do not recommend it on a D800. Sorry, but if its not a full-frame lens, it will not be good enough on ANY full-frame Nikon, and it is not.

I find the pictures to be underwhelming and overexposed in some instances. A high end APS-C looks to be about as good or better...especially for these sort of shots. Which brings me to the observation that full-frame may be important for some applications but certainly it is a premium price to pay when you can get an excellent output from the best of the APS-C, for a lot less dollars.

I checked out the D600 at Adorama today, and it seems a good deal smaller than my D800. Was really tempted to buy one, but I was there for one reason: to buy an X-Pro1. And after looking at the first set of images, I'm so glad I did.

But these are really great looking sample images guys from an extremely exciting camera. Thanks DPR.

Both of you should know that DXO's scores are far from the be all and end all indicator of sensor quality. Lenses make a huge difference. For example even the best Nikon lenses have trouble with reds in lowlight at high ISOs on Nikon DSLRS. Yep, there's a solution.

So really you can mostly skip whatever the DXO "score" is. It's sort of like how fast a car can accelerate in straight line and nothing else.

The D800 is not particularly good above ISO 3200. Assertions to the contrary don't make it so.

It would probably be the same sensor base as Nikon, but Nikon uses their own design, processing, and electronics that have historically been better than the similar sensor used in the Sony product. The RX1 will be the most interesting though, without the light loss.

Only really if you look at old cameras like the D3X (costing several times as much as the A900/A850) and D300 vs A700 (the latter was fixed with the last firmware update). The A500 already showed similar performance to the D300S, the A580 has similar noise performance to the D7000/ D5100, same for the NEX 5N etc. A hair less DR at base ISO, but better colour response (Sony CFA's) in return.

How can you say that the D600 directly competes with the RX1 (point and shoot with no interchangeable lens), and the VG900 (video camera)?No; the D600 competes with the A99 which classically, due to the translucent mirror suffers from 1/3 to 1/2 light loss, lower dynamic range and lower quality high ISO.

Will you see that on your picture. You all pull things by hair, DXO Religion and so on, finding a needle in a haystack to justify things. I use a Fuji S5 and I bet all you want that up to 1600 iso it beats D600 for a length and, we do not speak about color rendering, skin tones, and dynamic. All i get from a D600 is a double sized picture I will reduce to nuts on small prints anyway, same as I do with the NEX-7. Unfortunately you get a bigger picture size with that much pixels, but, in exceptions of some pro;s who shoot publicity panels, who needs a picture size as big as a house door?

Waste of time since these are taken with the kit lens. The limiting factor is the lens not the camera. Not sure why DPR doesnt use the same lens across bodies so that proper comparison can be made. Something like the Zeiss 50/2 Makro can be used on Nikon and Canon bodies. For the m43 cameras they use a macro lens.

"Waste of time since these are taken with the kit lens. The limiting factor is the lens not the camera" Wrong. The kit lens outresolves 24 and 36MP with ease through most of the frame. Corners excepted as usual. Which is why Nikon built it, to hang with the new high MP cameras and not be the bottleneck.

If only the D600 had 51 AF points...39 is perfect for the APS-Cs, but taking a D7000 and shoving a FF into it and not designing the D600 from scratch is why I'm staying away from D600..if it was priced at the rumored $1500-1600 then that's a different story

Wow, here come the whiners who don't know when they're getting another class leading product from Nikon. The AF by all accounts is fast and accurate. By comparison take a look at the flimsy Canon 6D with its poor AF with only 11 points and ONE, yes one cross type sensor. The D600 pretty much has everything the serious amateur needs....

Played with the D600 today. Disappointed a little in the AF system as it covers a tiny area in the centre. Why give so many points in such a small area. The FPS and AF were a little quirky too and I really didn't see the benefit in it. Was told the 6D's 11 AF points cover the same area as the D600 so I prefer less points in the area supplied. Nikon should have covered a larger area or supplied less points. ISO is good but I would have liked it higher. So I'm now really looking forward to playing with the EOS 6D. Should get the opportunity in October. So lessons learnt today are.... Don't get to excited about the hype on spec and get the camera in your hands first...

lol. You didn't test it very well Beany. You can have 11 points with the D600 if that's what you want. In fact you can have 9, 11, 21 or 39. With the 6D you can't have more than 11 period. I wouldn't get too excited by a camera that's just goint to limit you with backwards technology if I was you...

If the same 39 points covered a larger area, then by all means I completely agree that they are sufficient. But because they just back ported the AF system from D7000 those points are huddled up around the center.

I am not sure about how much area the lesser number of points on the Canon cover. IMO we should be really looking at the area covered to make a proper comparison.

I know about the selection of AF points thanks.... Don't need to buy a camera that offers high spec that won't be used (by me and others anyway)You'll just have to wait a while and see real world shot's from both. As for backward technology.... You better read up on what both these cameras have. The are for different markets. One for forward thinking photographers one for the easily lead on spec. But to be fair both sound really good and both will take great photo's. I can't wait to try out the Smart phone app that gives full control of the EOS 6D.GBL hope you enjoy crammed AF points ;) We both know that lot's of both these models will be sold...

To BeanyPic,let me get this straight, you are disappointed that the D600 has 39 points of which 9 are cross type and covers a smaller area, but you are looking forward to the 6D that ONLY has 11 points and only 1 cross type but covers the same area?How does your statement even make sense?Is it an aesthetic issue for you (11 points are prettier than 39)?Sometimes people should read out load what they are going to post before hitting the post button...

I very rarely use AF I either select my point or MF... So 39 crammed points are of little use to me. So on that rational less points that allow me to select the point I need with speed is a better solution for me. So Bamboojled please don't spurt out comments as you just have without "reading it out loud before hitting the post button yourself". I'm not a point and shoot photographer. I actually think about a structure my photograph's.And for your "Aesthetic" statement, I'd watch what you type on comment pages...

39 close points also give you 3 things - more cross type sensors, better tracking and, very small AF points, which I can place easily on the eye of a small animal or person. Another reason more points helps is in macro, with the camera fixed and the subject moving (an insect, perhaps). You can move the point to 39 different places, rather than 11. I can't think of a single situation where all else being equal, more AF points is worse than less.

If you found the AF quirky at all, you likely had the wrong custom settings. My D600 locks on immediately, and focuses on things so dark I can't see them in the viewfinder. You can bet the AF in the 6D is not better than a 1 series, which isn't -3.0 EV - Canon would never do that.

As for the argument of selecting 1 of 11 points faster than 39, you can set the D600 to 11 points too...heck, you can even set it to 9 points - imagine how fast you could switch between them then!!

So, to be completely clear; you RARELY USE AF, but you are complaining about too many focus points.

You feel that 11 points with 1 cross type is nicer than having a greater selection of focusing points (39 with 9 cross type), even though everyone has already explained to you that you can customize it to 11 or 9 point focusing with 9 cross type...

You talk about thinking and structuring your photographs...

If you thought and structured your posts with the same meticulousness as your photographs, you would realize that what you are saying is asinine

Bamboojled your aggressive comments don't make sense to me, so I'll let them pass me by. I'm happy and successful with the kit I have and will let you and others rant about this camera. Why are Nikon Fan Boys so defensive these days??? As I said before I tried it out and was only slightly impressed. I just think Nikon have tried to hard to please spec readers. That's my opinion OK.

AllOtherNamesTaken "RELAX" I did change the settings, I know how to use a camera. As I've stated the 1.30hrs I had with the camera (which was indoors) was useful and this camera didn't light my fire. I'm not saying the EOS 6D will. I will get my hands on one in October. Then I can make an informed decision and not go on a spec sheet.

IMO with the QA/QC problems of the D800 and looking at these studio shots...unless there was a *vast* improvement made in ACR from the D600 to the D800...the D800 is giving you larger file sizes without an increase in detail. Look at all the feathery and fine detail bits of the studio shot...the D600 is showing more *true* detail. That or someone had a duff 85mm 1.8 on the D800. Looking at these shots I would never buy the D800 over the D600 and suffer the extra file bloat if I'm not getting more true detail. I think 24MP which Sony uses for their new flagship might be the sweet spot for classical Bayer AA filter type cameras? D600 really looks killer here...

I agree the controls are ergonomics of the D600 are purposely watered down. The sad reality is I think Nikon users want D800 controls + shutter with the D600 sensor and at least 6 FPS. And yes looking at the feather in the mid upper left of the frame, to me I am getting file bloat and nothing more if this is a studio shot on a tripod with one of the sharper lenses heavily stopped down...then *YES* behind a traditional AA filter the D800 is not giving you much more than file bloat (+ superior controls which should belong on a camera with the D600 sensor).

I have not played with the DPR samples yet, but I downloaded the still lifes at Imaging Resourse, uprezzed each one to the standard 360 dpi 17x25" I send to the printer, and the D800 clearly resolved more fine detail as you could see in the uprezzed files. Moreover, you can see it in the print, if you are up close. That said, it's not earth shattering. YMMV.

Ok it looks like there are minute differences in lighting which you notice if you examine the upper left feather and compare different camera's. The D800 and 5DMKIII shots were obviously more alike in lighting. The D600 lighting is more like the lighting in the 5DMKII which I assume may be years different in when the photo was taken. Regardless to me it appears that itty bitty minute differences in lighting plays a far stronger role in making the feather hold more details than having more MPs. Comparing the lower left corner of the Bailey's bottle also shows differences in lighting. Still my conclusion is the same...if tiny differences in lighting make a substantially bigger difference in resolving detail, than I don't see the need to carry around extra MPs.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.